The latest round of Mattel recalls heighten and escalate the lead paint issue, as well as the health hazard to children related to products with magnets. If ingested, these magnets could cause fatal internal damage. This latest round of recalls totals nearly 19 million. And so I pose an ethics and business question on how to best handle this growing situation: Aggressive Recalls and Increased Oversight? Or, Stop, Retool and Rebuild?


I'm sure there is some other alternative between these two, but for the sake of debating the issue I'm staying with these two polar choices.
#1 Agressive Recalls and Increased Oversight
It appears from this latest Wall Street Journal article noted above and many other reports that this is the current course. Mattel's Chief Executive Robert Eckert is following a strong path of communicating openly and honestly about the situation.
And in the video interview embedded in the link above, he lays out a three step plan which includes 1) Testing all supplies of paint, 2) Testing finished toys and 3) Increasing their random inspection volume. This is in addition to the immediate recalls that have been implemented to rid store shelves of already-produced culprit toys that could potentially harm children.
In his comments, Eckert can relate, he is quick to point out, having four children of his own.
But is this enough? Would he bring one of the toys affected, say a "Sarge" truck, into his home once this new process has begun?
With this new level and increased volume of toys being recalled and the massive media attention that has been occuring, even with this level of inspection, will parents be comfortable bringing these toys into their homes?
How does a manufacturer like Mattel find a way to dispel the growing fear and concern about the health hazards that their products might pose for their children? Is it enough to inspect and test, or is it necessary to begin again?
#2 Stop, Retool and Rebuild
With the busiest shopping time of the year just around the corner and toymakers ramping up product, retooling new products can' happen in time to make the season. But what would happen for Mattel, let's say if they decided to wipe the "affected" toys off their shelves for this holiday season as a signal to parents about their commitment to kids' safety?
Would this single action divert spending to other Mattel lines? Or would lost sales on those items be replaced with other Mattel products made by grateful parents who gravitate to a company who would so magnanimously made a decision on the behalf of children everywhere?
Mattel, at this point in time, is expressing confidence that Christmas sales won't be affected by this current situation and recalls.
But my question is, even with Mattel's commitment to review the lead paint and resolve the issue related to magnets, won't this still be in the back of parent's minds? Parents are scared. In this account from Ali Lund's perspective, as a fearful parent, she is constantly checking serial numbers and has her pediatrician's phone number on speed-dial. She says, "I want to trust that it's isolated. But I worry about toys from China."
Is there some form of option #2 that is right for children, right for parents and in the long-term right for Mattel?
I continue to harken back to the Tylenol situation and how they immediately withdrew all forms of their product from their shelves when they had their scare. They took a bold and dramatic move that they didn't have to. It cost them alot in the short term. But they earned their way back into the marketplace and along the way into the hearts of customers because of their noble actions.
Food for thought: Isn't this dramatic level of commitment to kids' lives perhaps something to consider?